Australia to drug test welfare recipients

[Carolinesbeanies]

AIBU to totally agree with this?

www.newscientist.com/article/2145603-australia-plans-random-drug-tests-for-people-receiving-welfare/

(Not dumping and running, but Im working a late today and wont be back till late evening. Didnt want to let this article go under the radar!)

Think it sounds like a great thing! as does how they plan to deal with those who test positive! but i've always thought it should be done in this country too!

W.A is in the grip of a meth epidemic. Meth makes people extremely unpredictable and often violent. I think this is a knee jerk reaction to try and stem the tide but its too late. I honestly dont know what the answer is. My DH is a police officer here and has been attacked by a meth addict who had mixed his drugs and was hallucinating - it was bloody terrifying and i speak as a retired police officer with 16 years service. Something has to give

I'd test positive for cocaine or amphetamines.

I hate to imagine what it would be like if drug testing was implemented in the UK and if we were on benefits. The Tories prefer a "sanction first, ask questions later" approach based on their track record so far, so I wonder how long my family would be left without money while I tried to provide enough evidence that it's for medical reasons.

I hope no families in Australia will face the same issue, or that there would be exceptions for those who'd test positive for medical reasons. The amount of money and effort policing this scheme, combined with the consequences of addicts turning to crime rather than receiving state help, surely makes this idea a non-starter?

What will it actually achieve? What is the aim?

What will it actually achieve?

Widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Ensures that addicts always remain "undesirables". Keeps the focus of people's anger at any failing in society on its poorest citizens "taking our hard-earned money", rather than poor budgeting choices and selfish decisions made by politicians.

If they want illegal drugs they can get a job and fund it themselves

This was in the first couple if pages and I'm still chuckling. "Oh fuck I think I've become a meth head. Better get a paper round to feed the kids."

Ensures that addicts always remain "undesirables". Keeps the focus of people's anger at any failing in society on its poorest citizens "taking our hard-earned money", rather than poor budgeting choices and selfish decisions made by politicians

Indeed!
An underclass of people who are barely scraping by and who will never have the energy or resources to be a threat to those further up the social scale serves many useful functions for the rest of society.

Although they are illegal drugs are very widely used.

This is so useful..... it means there is a large pool of people who can be prosecuted/persecuted/demonised etc should it serve the interests of those in power to do so

It's crappy to spend well earned money or welfare money on any addiction, drug, alcohol, gambling, whatever. However, not caring for people at a basic level is not ethical or right, and also has unintended social consequences which harm other people. People trying these policies are I guess just trying to find solutions to intractable problems or injustices.

So many mumsnetters are on another planet. People with real problems will end up killing themselves in desperation. As some have in the UK with the stress of sanctions. If my benefits were restricted like this, I have a disability, I would seriously consider suicide as an option. My only other option would be prostitution as I would make a terrible thief.

Pmsl. Well thought out argument there mumoffiv. How's it going to work exactly? What will be the outcome? What are they trying to achieve?

Money spent on their kids not on drugs

So alcohol, cigarettes and gambling are OK then? Oh, I forgot, the government rakes in cash on all those.

What did she say?

This is a shockingly bad idea that has already failed in many places. The second part of the article linked in the OP is very sensible.

Where this has been tried, very very few people have tested positive for drugs. In the absence of any evidence of a problem, this is simply a way to further stigmatise and dehumanise benefit recipients. It's also a massive waste of taxpayers' money.

I understand the Australian system is not designed to deprive people of their benefits, unlike the systems in some US states, but to manage claimants' money for them via a card and, for a second positive test, to refer them for treatment.

I imagine there'll be a black market in cards, or people will buy meat to sell on or whatever. People with addiction issues are astonishing lateral thinkers. Or they'll commit more crime or just be poorer, more prone to homelessness, more malnourished, more unwell, less able to look after their DC etc.

Compulsory treatment is also a massive waste of time and money. It just doesn't work. And why are we starting with compulsory treatment? How about providing enough good quality voluntary treatment first and seeing where that gets us?

I didn't know welfare cards were being rolled out more generally in Australia. Is the money on them AU$ or some sort of 'points' or pseudocurrency? Are there any further restrictions beyond food? Could you spend it all on cake and fizzy pop or would it be rejected? Is there any monitoring of claimants' spending?

Sorry for all the questions, I just remember the glee from certain quarters when Lord Freud (architect of universal credit and proponent of scrapping the min wage for disabled people) suggested a blockchain system for benefit cards so the DWP could provide robust budgeting advice block purchases based on high quality real-time data on claimants' spending habits.

The one to watch in the UK WRT addiction or substance misuse issues is the new Work And Health Programme. I'm still reading up on this but from a quick skim it covers drug and alcohol issues (among many other things) and gives Work Coaches the power to decide appropriate treatment as part of a Work Programme.

Fo r those saying addiction is a choice: I worked in substance misuse for a long time and there were people coming in who'd been injected with heroin by their own parents who wanted to keep them quiet. One experience of addiction is one experience, just like most other conditions.

My own addiction was caused by medical malpractice, so it really isn't as simple as some have suggested at all. I work full time now but as an autistic person, if I was to be made redundant I'd struggle to get another job and being subjected to drugs testing wouldn't help matters at all. Why should my child suffer through no fault of his, or my, own?

Not RTFT. No, I don't like that idea. I can see where they're coming from implementing it, in that it means money will be more likely to be spent on essentials like food and bills.
However, how is it OK to tell people what they have to spend their money on if they're poor, but if you're rich you can do what you like?
We're all people.

For those saying where do we draw the line - it's been drawn at legality. Welfare money shouldn't be spent on illegal activity. However i feel like this would be expensive to roll out.
albadross I'm sorry for your situation however I feel like you are a rare case.

This thread is so depressing. But good to know what people really think I suppose.

Hahahahahaha
www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/31/rehab-waiting-lists-not-checked-in-welfare-drug-test-sites-australian-senate-inquiry-told

So it is going to go really well isn't?

I don't think the Basics/Welfare care limits what you can buy except for alcohol and tobacco. I just bought a new washing machine online for halfprice. They don't take a Basics card. If I were forced on one and needed a new appliance, I bet I would find it easier to use one of those expensive schemes where you rent to buy as I wouldn't have the cash to buy online. It's going to keep people in poverty.

It isn't going to go well. It'll be poorly managed and, as always, it will badly affect the people who are most in need of help and support.

I'm Australian, I've lived here my whole life and suffered from addiction and mental health issues. Middle class Australians are beautiful people, warm hearted and generous. To those around them. But we are absolute cunts to the poor and our indigenous population. And I feel like this is just another way to punish them in order to make the current government appear to be "hard on drugs".

They'd be far better off testing them, then insisting on a 6 month rehabilitation scheme as a condition of receiving the benefits

I know why people think like; this I do. Which is why randoms, politicians and well-meaning amateurs shouldn't lead the way on drug policy. Rehab doesn't work if it's forced. There are generally not enough places for people who are CHOOSING to get help. So forcing people makes no sense at all. Having people forced into treatment is ineffective for them but often makes rehab less effective for others (group dynamics).

Stimulants clear the system quickly so better take crack than cannabis... Plus all the other reasons everyone has written.

I know everyone who doesn't work in the field thinks they know how to solve the issues. Us SW/front line worker/addictions and MH workers haven't been sitting going 'duuuurrrr' for twenty years. We actually know our shit. So please don't listen to good-sounding bullshit from politicians. We can solve a lot of addiction issues, but not like this.

People on welfare shouldn't be spending other people's tax contributions on illegal drugs.

Read the article, New Zealand spent 1 million NZ dollars, tested thousands and found 22 people who had used drugs.

Is that really a good way of spending tax payer's money?

Toad I absolutely agree. Go Jacinta!

"And I cant help thinking that the OP is after some fodder for something......."

No, like most, I was stunned by the headline (hence my reason for the thread) and that this is indeed being proposed currently. Then I read it. Then I agreed with what I read.

Firstly the restriction to cash. The idea I thought was a sensible one. A pp has pointed out however, that theres a risk that only certain outlets will probably accept this new 'debit card ' system, and shed be right. We have a ridiculous system here in the UK, where those struggling financially will be placed onto pay as you go utility meters for example, and the cost of the utility is then charged higher. The poor do indeed pay far higher rates in terms of credit, utilities etc and yes Id agree, this debit card proposal may indeed create another 'poor tax'. But is there an answer to that issue, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water?

Secondly, I agreed with a further route to rehab being created, (2 fails and your in). It also on the surface, appeared to aid paying for that rehab. Currently, here in the UK, there are very limited routes into rehab. The court may order it. The addict may request it. But thats it.

We dont have a bottomless pit of public funding. I suppose one thought I had was, if automatic rehab was offered to you as an addict, in return for limited cash access for a period of time that helped pay for that rehab, would you indeed be queuing up for the test?